How did I come to change my mind? How did I move from believing that the Bible said that all same-sex relationships are wrong to where I am now? This part of my story is not in chronological order, because it is a journey that did not take place in anything like a straight line. It took place over nearly 20 years, with many changes of direction and wrong turns along the way.

There are really only six passages in the Bible that can be used as primary evidence that all same-sex relationships are wrong. They are the story of Sodom in Genesis 19; a couple of verses in Leviticus, 18.22 and 20.13; Romans 1; 1 Corinthians 6.9–10; and 1 Timothy 1.9–10.

One approach to these questions is to ask what do these passages mean? This is an interesting question and one which many people, including me, have studied at length over the years. Unfortunately, while it is interesting, it isn’t a terribly practical question. Instead, I want to consider how these passages relate to two typical same-sex couples.

  • Alan and Ben are two men in a committed, faithful, same-sex relationship. They are both Christian.
  • Carol and Diane are two women in a committed, faithful, same-sex relationship. They are both Christian.

Although these are two hypothetical couples, they are representative of real-life same-sex couples that I know. We will go through these passages in the order that they appear in the Bible.

Genesis 19: the story of Sodom

In Genesis 19, two angels visit the ancient city of Sodom. They are offered shelter in Lot’s house, but an angry crowd surrounds the house and demands that the visitors are brought out. I think it is reasonable to conclude that the crowd wanted to rape the visitors. That is the dominant theme of the story.

Rape is always wrong. It doesn’t matter what the genders of the people involved are. In Judges 19, we have the story of the destruction of Gibeah. In that story, Gibeah is destroyed because of the rape of a woman. Nobody should look at the story of the rape in Gibeah and extrapolate from that to conclude that God hates all heterosexual sex. Nobody should look at the story of the attempted rape in Sodom and extrapolate from that to conclude that God hates homosexual sex. These stories teach us that rape is wrong. They are not about consensual, loving, sexual relationships.

What does Genesis 19 teach us about the morality of Alan and Ben’s relationship? Alan has never raped Ben, and Ben has never raped Alan. Genesis 19 tells us nothing about their relationship, and it certainly doesn’t tell us that it is wrong. If you try to use Genesis 19 to show that their relationship is wrong, then you are reading something into Scripture that isn’t there.

What does Genesis 19 teach us about the morality of Carol and Diane’s relationship? Once again, Carol has never raped Diane, and Diane has never raped Carol, so Genesis 19 tells us nothing about their relationship. There is an additional factor here. If Genesis 19 is about male–male rape, then another reason why it doesn’t tell us anything about Carol and Diane’s relationship is because neither of them is male. If you try to use Genesis 19 to show that their relationship is wrong, then you are reading two things into Scripture that aren’t there.

Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13: the Law of Moses

Before we think about what Leviticus says about the two relationships we are considering, we have to think about what the role of the Law of Moses is in our lives today. Do we have to follow it? In short, we do not. We are not under the Law, but under grace.1 This is an absolutely core Christadelphian belief, and one of the Doctrines to be Rejected is that “the law of Moses is binding”.

Sometimes people argue that the Law of Moses can be divided into ‘moral’ law and ‘ceremonial’ law, and that Christ’s sacrifice only released us from the ceremonial parts of the Law. While this is an interesting idea, it is one that is not supported by the Word of God. Galatians 3.25

But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster

in particular makes this clear.

Even though we are not under the Law of Moses, it is worth considering what Leviticus 18.20 and 20.13 mean. Leviticus 18.6–20 contains a list of several prohibited sexual relationships. Verse 12 is fairly typical,

Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman.

the key phrase here is “uncover the nakedness of”. That is repeated throughout the list of prohibited relationships. The phrase “thou shalt not lie carnally with” is used in verse 20.

Leviticus 18.22 uses a different phrase.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind.

The translators used a different English phrase here because the underlying Hebrew is different. The Hebrew does not say, “Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a man” or “Thou shalt not lie carnally with a man”. The meaning of the underlying idiom is not clear,2 and if the author of Leviticus had meant verse 22 to be a prohibition as general as the ones in 6–20, he would surely have used the same Hebrew idiom. This same, unclear, idiom is used in Leviticus 20:13 as well. Fortunately, as we are not under the Law, we do not have to worry about the precise meaning of this prohibition.

What do these passages mean for our two couples? Once again nothing, as the two couples are under grace, not the Law. Binding them with the prohibitions of Leviticus 18 is as foolish as requiring Alan and Ben, or any other male Christadelphian, to follow the rule in Leviticus 19.27:

Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

These passages, like Genesis 19, cannot be applied to female–female relationships. That is a second reason why Leviticus tells us nothing about Carol and Diane’s relationship. In fact, even the most conservative reading of the Old Testament has no verses that can be used to argue that female–female relationships are wrong. This means we must be on our guard if we come across something in the New Testament that suggests that they are. After all, consider a Jewish female couple in the first century. It would seem usual that they would be expected to end their relationship if they wanted to convert to Christianity.

Romans 1

Verses 26 and 27 of Romans 1 are commonly used to show that all same- sex relationships are wrong. However, when we examine these verses in context, we find a different message. In verses 21–23, the chapter describes people who abandoned God and became idol worshippers,

…when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

and then these people, the idol worshippers from verses 21–23, start to sin sexually,

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (vv. 24-25)

and then, the idol worshippers extend their sexual sin to include same-sex activity in verses 26 and 27.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use of that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

The pattern is idolatry, followed by opposite-sex sexual sins, followed by same-sex sexual sins.

You would be right to point out that the language used in verses 26 and 27 is extremely negative. Could it be argued that, because this language is so negative, all same-sex relationships are wrong, even those between Christians? In verses 24 and 25, opposite-sex sexual relationships are described, and they are described using equally negative language. If you are going to argue that the negative language in verses 26 and 27 means all same-sex relationships are wrong, then you should also argue that the negative language in verses 24 and 25 means all opposite-sex relationships are wrong, and that is clearly a ridiculous position to take.

What does this mean for our two couples? Remember, they are two Christian couples. They are not idol worshippers. Romans 1 does not talk about them, and this passage cannot be used to say that their relationships are wrong.

1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy

The final two passages are 1 Corinthians 6.9–10 and 1 Timothy 1.9–10.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6.9–10, emphasis mine)

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (1 Timothy 1.9–10, emphasis mine)

In 1 Corinthians, the word ‘effeminate’ is malakos in Greek and the phrases ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’ is arsenokoites. A footnote to the NIV translation says,

The words …[are] two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.

In 1 Timothy, arsenokoites is translated as “them that defile themselves with mankind”, but malakos is not present.

If the NIV is correct in its interpretation of these words, we have to ask why the words appear together in 1 Corinthians, but only one of them is in 1 Timothy. After all, you can’t have one partner without the other. This is the first thing that should suggest to us that the interpretation of these passages has to be done with care.

Same-sex relationships were well-known and even celebrated in the first century Greco-Roman world. First century Greek has a rich vocabulary for talking about sexual relationships between men,3 and the words malakos and arsenokoites are not part of that vocabulary. In particular, the word kinaedos carries the meaning that the NIV ascribes to malakos.4

Although the etymology of arsenokoites can be used to suggest a connection with sex between men, the etymology of a word is not a solid guide to its meaning, and in other ancient sources arsenokoites is used to describe sexual sin between a husband and wife.5

Once again, reading these passages as general references to same-sex relationships is reading into Scripture something that is not there. If Paul had intended these passages to contain condemnation of same-sex relationships, he would have used other words. These passages teach us nothing about Alan and Ben’s relationship, or about Carol and Diane’s relationship.

What did Jesus teach?

What did Jesus teach about same-sex relationships? In particular, did he condemn them, or brand them all as sinful?

There can be no doubt that Jesus approved of men and women marrying.

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. (Matthew 19.4–6)

But does everybody have to follow this pattern? No:

But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. (Matthew 19.11)

If you remember nothing else about Jesus’ teaching on marriage and relationships, remember that verse. It is good for men and women to marry, but it is not for everyone.

We cannot twist Jesus’ support for men and women marrying into opposition for same-sex relationships, because at the very least we have to acknowledge that he did not teach that every man should marry a woman.

Where is Jesus’ condemnation of same-sex relationships? It is nowhere.

The core teaching of Christianity is what Christ taught himself. Everything else must be mere aspects of that. If same-sex relationships are fundamentally wrong, if a same-sex relationship can never be ‘pleasing’ to God, why can we not find Christ teaching that in the Gospels? It is inconceivable that our Master would have failed to tell us about such an important teaching.

Traditional marriage?

What about the story of Adam and Eve? Does that teach that same-sex relationships are wrong?

And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (Genesis 2.18)

That verse is the foundation of marriage; marriage is fundamentally about companionship. Can someone find a help meet through a same-sex relationship? Of course they can. I am in a same-sex relationship, and my partner is my “help meet”, and I am his. Our relationship matches the pattern of an Eden-like marriage. We can’t reproduce, but neither can many opposite-sex couples, and reproduction only came about after the Fall, so it cannot be an essential part of an Eden-like marriage.


In this article I have presented what I think the Bible teaches about same-sex relationships. It may or may not be what you think the Bible teaches about them, but I hope you can see that this is an issue of scriptural interpretation, not one of scriptural authority. It is much more of a conscience issue than one of doctrine. What ought we to do? Romans 14.5 tells us:

Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Paul wasn’t just talking about holy days, he was writing about all matters of conduct.

Paul went on to say

no man [should] put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way (Romans 14.13).

If you say that Alan and Ben must end their relationship before joining your ecclesia, think how huge a stumbling block that would be to both of them. As long as they are fully persuaded in their own minds, their relationship is of faith and not of sin.

I believe in a loving God, a God who doesn’t want anyone to perish, but wants everyone to come to repentance. If same-sex relationships are fundamentally wrong, if being in a same-sex relationship is inherently sinful, then I believe God would have made it clear. After years of Bible study, comparing scripture to scripture, and comparing scripture to my own life and my own direct experience of same-sex relationships, I came to the conclusion that, while the Bible speaks out against some sexual behaviours, it does not speak out against all same-sex relationships.

Next page: Would you fellowship me?
Previous page: Growing up Christadelphian and gay

Andrew McFarland Campbell


1. See, for example, Romans 6.14, Galatians 3.24–25, and Galatians 5.18.
2. For an academic discussion of the idiom, please see Olyan, S.M. (1994) ‘ “And with a male you shall not lie the lying down of a woman”: on the meaning and significance of Leviticus 18:22 and 20: 13’ in Journal of the History of Sexuality, (Oct. 1994) vol 5, no. 2, pp. 197–206, Austin: University of Texas Press. Also available online at [last accessed 21 October 2012].
3. See for example Hubbard, Thomas K., ed., Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. Print.
4. Dale B. Martin, (1996) “Arsenokoiês and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences”, Chapter 8, in Robert L. Brawley, ed., Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Also available online at
5. The translation and practical application of 1 Corinthians 6.9–10 and 1 Timothy 1.9–10 is discussed in more detail in Martin 1996 and McFarland Campbell, A. R. A., Same-Sex Relationships: 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy,

16 thoughts on “What the Bible says about same-sex relationships

  1. Greg Stone Reply

    Great articles Andrew, thank you. I would like to add that Romans 1 talks about changing natural relations for unnatural ones. For gay people it is unnatural to have relations with the opposite sex. It goes against our nature, how we are wired. So the passage doesn’t condemn same-sex relations for gay people.

  2. Deborah Ainsworth Reply

    The Truth in the Bible shows that homosexuals and lesbians are wicked in the eyes of God and your “explanation” stated above is not an accurate interpretation. To have a hope of everlasting life your relationship must end and God will show mercy and forgiveness to those who repent of their sinful behaviours.

  3. Anonymous Reply

    Hi Andrew, with the Matthew 19 quote, your logic seems rather comprehensive. However, I would suggest that you have reached the incorrect conclusion by drawing an answer only from v11.If you read the passage, v12 is clearly part of the argument that Christ makes, explaining who “cannot recieve this saying”; it is the eunuchs! Whether born a eunuch or made a eunuch after for certain reasons, they are the ones Christ is addressing in v11.

    • Andrew McFarland Campbell Post authorReply

      There are three types of eunuchs: “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” (Matt 19:12, KJV).

      The word “eunuch” has a much wider sense than modern readers realise. What most people today think of as a eunuchs is what is what Christ called “made eunuchs of men”. ‘Born eunuchs’ include men who are physically intact but do not have any sexual desire towards women.

      Clement of Alexandria relates the beliefs of the followers of Basilides, a Gnostic leader, about Matthew 19:12: “Some men, from their birth, have a nature to turn away from women; and those who are naturally constituted in this way do well not to marry. These, they say, are the eunuchs from birth.”
      Eunuchs Have No Lust for Women on “Born Eunuchs”: Homosexual Identity in the Ancient World

      • Anonymous Reply

        Andrew, if you approach the bible wanting to believe that homosexuality is okay, you’ll come to the conclusion that it is fine. The arguments that you present all seem logical, well thought out and fair, but to me it is clear that you have come at the topic with a very biased view. If we put aside preconceived ideas and simply read the bible as a whole, it is clear that its message about homosexuality is negative. Of the 6 quotes you have argued for, all of them say that homosexuality is wrong. You have attempted to push this aside with Greek meanings and by taking some passages a little out of context. I strongly recommend, and even beg you as a former brother in Christ, to reconsider. We all want truth. I’m sure it’s hard to go against homosexuality for some, as they feel its desires, but life in Christ is hard! It is hard for some not to commit fornication, it is hard for some not to control their tongues, it is hard for some not to be angry. Striving for God’s perfection is our goal! Can any of us really imagine God, or our Lord Jesus Christ, having or agreeing with homosexual relationships? It is just simply not the case. God bless you in your studies

        • Andrew McFarland Campbell Post authorReply

          Anonymous, if you approach the Bible wanting to believe that same-sex relationships are not okay, then you’ll come to the conclusion that they are not, at least most of the time. When I first started to seriously study what the Bible says about same-sex relationships I believed that all same-sex relationships were wrong.

          You say I have come to the topic with a very biased view. Can you give some examples of how I am biased?

          I’d like to know how you think that the “6 quotes” say that homosexuality is wrong. It might be best to start with you explaining why 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 teaches that same-sex relationships are wrong, although you can pick any one of the six to start with.

          You cannot imagine Christ “agreeing with” same-sex relationships. I can. Which one of us is right? It doesn’t matter what either of us can imagine, and it would be very worldly to think otherwise. It only matters what the Bible teaches. That is why we must prayerfully study the Bible, as I have done and do. What I believe the Bible teaches is presented on this website and a couple of others (Faith and Pride and my personal site).

          [It isn’t clear if you are the same “Anonymous” as in the comment above, but in the future it would be easier if you used your real name when commenting.]

  4. Anonymous (same as both previous) Reply

    Okay Andrew, let’s start at Leviticus 18. I would 100% stand with you and say that we are not under the Law, but under grace! What a fabulous truth that the modern disciple can experience! However, to completely discount the Law? Our Lord certainly didn’t, so neither should we. Please consider the following passages in regard to the Law:

    Hosea 8v12 – God spoke about the great things of His Law
    Isaiah 42v20-21 – Christ was to magnify the Law and make it honourable
    Matthew 5v17-19 – Christ was to fulfil the Law, not to destroy it
    Romans 7v12 – the Law was holy, just and good, perfect for the purpose for which it was given
    Hebrews 8v13 – the Law will certainly wax old, but the principles live on (the following chapter illustrates simply how the concepts from the Law were superb illustrations of the time to come)
    Romans 2v14-15, 27-29 – the Law was righteous
    Luke 10v25-28 – Jesus said the answer to eternal life lay in the Law

    On top of those verses, God is the author of the Law. God, who never changes. His morals stand forever. If he believed something was wrong when writing the Law, he still believes it’s wrong now. Sure, maybe the actual act isn’t wrong (eg. the quote about beards you brought up), but the principle behind the quote still stands. The Law clearly has some significance in life today. Otherwise, why would it be part of the “Holy Bible”!? 2 Tim 3v15-16 states that the scriptures are able to make us wise to salvation, and all of it is profitable for reproof, correction etc. So now with that understanding, let’s head over to Lev 18.

    Before we focus our attention on v22, we need to understand the rest of the chapter. The verses leading up to v22 are all talking about inappropriate sexual relationships. For example, v8 states that we should not have sexual relationships with our mother (Interestingly, Paul quotes this in 1 Cor 5 when talking to the Corinthian ecclesia about this exact problem, indicating that Paul, who said to follow him as he followed Christ, still believed the Law had meaning). In fact, v6-20 are all speaking of sexual relationships that are wrong in God’s eyes. So we come to v22. Firstly, I must pick up on the way you said the wording of the verse was different to the rest, and therefore it might not be talking about sex. There is simply no way that this is the case. YES, the wording is different. However, ALL translations carry the idea of a sexual relationship, as do word dictionaries and Strong’s etc. There is a difference in wording: it is much stronger language! God includes “it is an abomination” at the end of the verse! The only other relationship he does this for is for sexual relationships with animals! I hope we all can agree that a relationship with an animal is simply vulgar. God strings these two verses together. I have said enough. Please consider prayerfully and thoughtfully. Just an interesting note that Paul picks up the start of Lev 18 in 1 Cor 5, and in 1 Cor 6, it appears he picks up v22! God bless your studies

    • Andrew McFarland Campbell Post authorReply

      I don’t know what religion or denomination you are, but this is a Christadelphian website. It is central to the Christadelphian faith that the law of Moses is not binding on believers of the Gospel. We can’t pick and choose which aspects of the law we follow either. James 2:10 makes that clear. The fulfilment of the law is not picking and choosing which parts are moral and following their principles. The fulfilment of the Law is love – Romans 13:8-10.

      You are wrong to say that “the verses leading up to v22 are all talking about inappropriate sexual relationships”. Leviticus 18:6 to 20 are about inappropriate sexual relationships. Verse 21 is about idolatry, possibly about some form of sexual activity that is connected with idol worship, possibly about some sort of child sacrifice. It would be extremely odd for verse 21 to be in the middle of a long list of inappropriate sexual relationships,

      This is one of the reasons why ‘abomination’ (tow’ebah) is an interesting term in Leviticus 18:22. The Hebrew word translated as ‘abomination’ here, does not mean ‘disgusting thing’. It means ‘ritually offensive’. This is how it is used in other places in the Old Testament (such as Deuteronomy 13:12 and following). Not only is Leviticus 18:22 separated from the lists of forbidden sexual practices by a verse about idolatry, Leviticus 18:22 uses language connected with idolatry itself.

      Leviticus 18:22 uses different wording. It doesn’t use the same Hebrew construct that verses 6 to 20 use, so it would be wrong to assume that it has the same meaning. Most translations do carry the meaning of a sexual relationship, but if Leviticus 18:22 was meant to be a blanket ban on sex between men in the same way that verse 20 is a blanket ban on sex with your neighbour’s wife it would have used the same Hebrew wording. Verse 20 says “thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour’s wife”. If Verse 22 was supposed to mean the same thing but for male same-sex relationships it would have said “thou shalt not lie carnally with a man.”

      Leviticus 18:22 is not part of the list of forbidden sexual relationships. It is instead in a passage about idolatry, and it uses language related to idolatry. It also uses Hebrew terminology that is different from the terminology used in the list of forbidden sexual relationships. Reading Leviticus 18:22 as if it were simply a blanket prohibition on male same-sex relationships just isn’t supported by Scripture.

      “The only other relationship he does this for is for sexual relationships with animals!”

      This is simply wrong. Sexual relationships with animals are described as “confusion” in the King James version. The Hebrew word is “tebel”.

      Why do you say Paul picks up Leviticus 18:22 in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10? And on the subject of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, can you explain why you think it teaches that homosexuality is wrong? You also haven’t given me any examples of how you think I am biased. You may have answered these questions in comments that got rejected because you are using a fake email address etc.

  5. Anonymous (same as both previous) Reply

    Also, we must consider Gen 19. You believe the problem was rape. IF rape really was the issue, why didn’t Lot offer himself to the men of Sodom instead of his daughers? Something to consider (in all truth Andrew, I need to study that aspect of Gen 19 more myself, as it seems very odd in any circumstance to offer you daughters to a mob of men! All sex outside of marriage is wrong, so why is Lot giving them the option? Perhaps he knew his daughters hearts, how Sodom had really already taken them?). But moving on. A quick search of “Sodom” throughout the bible gives a number of hits. Ezekiel 16 is where we will start. v49-50 reads “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.” I want to focus on the phrase “they were haughty, and committed abomination before me”. Where have we heard that word “abomination” before? Lev 18v22! While this is not hard and fast evidence to prove that the issue in Sodom was homosexuality, it certainly suggests it, and therefore provides more evidence for homosexuality than rape.

    • Andrew McFarland Campbell Post authorReply

      Why didn’t Lot offer himself instead of his daughters? The only thing we can tell from that is that he seemed to value his own safety above his daughters’.

      ‘Abomination’ is not a euphemism for homosexuality, and the Bible itself does not connect Sodom with homosexuality. I wrote about the sin of Sodom in a Christadelphian magazine, The Testimony, back in 2004. I have just published a revised version of the article which I think you will find interesting.

      [For some reason, possibly because you are using a fake email address, your comments are being marked as spam and some may have been deleted automatically. If you are going to continue to comment, please use your real name and email address, or set up a account.]

  6. Kate Curtis Reply

    Hello, Mr. Campbell,

    I recently found your website after reading your featured article in the Press On journal. I was very interested to see your position on Romans 1, as it seems to me to be the only passage condemning same-sex relationships in a manner which cannot be explained as a translation error. In this article, you suggested that Romans 1:24-25 should be considered specifically to apply to straight immorality, if you’ll pardon the term. I had always heard it read as a repetition with the following verses – that is to say, that the “vile impurity in the lusts of their hearts” was the same as the “degrading passions” of verse 26. While I think your reading is plausible, I can’t find anything in the Greek which provides evidence either way. Is there any additional detail I’m missing, or is it just a matter of interpretation?

    Thank you for your time,


    • Andrew McFarland Campbell Post authorReply

      I don’t think Romans 1 is a passage with a difficult or contraversial translation, although a lot has been written about what “against nature” means.

      I think it is a mistake to read Romans 1: 26 and 27 as a repetition of verses 24 and 25. Even if you ignore that verse 26 beings “For this cause”, which means 26 follows directly from the preceeding verses, 26 and 27 introduce the idea of same-sex sexual interaction. For 26 and 27 to be a repetition of 24 and 25, we would expect to find at least some hint of same-sex sexual interaction in 24 and 25, but it is not there.

      I am currently working on another article for Press On, where I will write more about Romans 1 (and the other passages on this page).

      By the way, my surname is “McFarland Campbell”, not “Campbell”, but lots of people make that mistake 😀

  7. Anonymous gay man Reply

    Hi Andrew, gay christadelphian here.
    I recently had a conversation with a brother about this and he asked me why God made Eve for Adam when he could have made someone of any gender or sex. This, for him is ‘proof’ of the ‘ideal template’ of a man and woman relationship that shouldn’t be strayed from. I couldn’t answer sufficiently but he says that he’s open to another view.
    With love, anonymous gay man

  8. Aaron Broughton-Janes Reply

    Thank you for your study Andrew. Although I was born and raised as a Christadelphian and still broadly hold to the same doctines that the Christadelphians hold (although I now put far less weight on them), I no longer consider myself a Christadelphian but remain a Christian and a disciple of Christ. What it clear to me is that the consideration of manogamous, failthful, and loving same-sex relationships as a sin which is “kingdom barring” has scant evidence and is by no means unquestionable. As such, I prefer to err on the side of mercy, understanding and acceptance over a dogmatic, hardline one. This, I believe, follows the attitude of the Lord Jesus who I consider my master. God bless.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.